09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Chairperson Peterson stated, in terms of legalities, there was a Code issue present. Mr. Henning stated he was a Code Official for 15 years in the City of Minneapolis. He stated there is the letter of the Code, and then there is the Code. He stated he did not meet the letter of the Code, however, he actually did meet the definition of the Code. He stated he had less square feet, and has impacted the environment less, by the manner in which he had constructed his driveway, than he would have had he constructed a 35 foot wide rectangular driveway. He stated his driveway was more attractive, it serves his purpose more satisfactorily, and he has left the trees in his yard. Commissioner Stevenson stated the applicant's design was very attractive. He stated he did not like these types of issues coming before the Planning Commission, after the fact. He stated the contractor, prior to performing the construction, has before him all of the City Code requirements. He stated the 35-foot width requirement was in place at the time the house was constructed, and the driveway was not "grandfathered" in. He stated he had a conflict in this regard, and noted all designs might not be so attractive. Mr. Henning stated if he had left the nine-foot pad as a gravel surface, it would have been acceptable in terms of the Code, however, if he placed a blacktop or a concrete surface upon it, he was in violation of the Code. He stated he believed the blacktop was an improvement. He stated, according • to the City Code, he would have been able to construct a 35-foot driveway to the street, and construct a 16-foot wide "Y" section at some point, or a separate driveway, and would not be in violation of the Code. He stated a gravel surface would not be in violation, however, the blacktop surface was, and he thought this did not make sense. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification regarding driveway width requirement at the street, as allowed by the Code. Ericson stated the Code provides that driveways be no wider than 22 feet at the street. He stated, however, the applicant was correct in that he could have brought the 35-foot driveway all the way to the property line, so long as it narrowed to 22 feet at the street right-of-way. He stated that the 35-foot driveway width requirement does take into consideration those areas with gravel surface, as well. He explained the City Code indicates a maximum 35-foot width, which requirement encompasses the driveway and parking areas, therefore, even if the present addition was gravel, the driveway would still be wider than allowed by the Code. Mr. Henning stated he agreed this might be the case, if they defined this addition as a driveway, and it was gravel, however, he could call it a storage area, a patio area, and it would be acceptable. He reiterated he did not feel he was in violation of the Code. He stated he had violated the letter of the Code, however, the he had not violated the actual definition of the Code. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the applicant was aware of the Code requirement prior to laying the blacktop on the pad. Mr. Henning stated he was. He explained that his reason for doing so was to maintain his placement upon the asphalt layer's list. He stated if had he not proceeded at that time, • he would not have been able to install the blacktop until the following spring, and desired to start his lawn this fall. He stated he took the risk that the Planning Commission would not approve the project, and could hardly comprehend that it would not be approved. He stated if it was not